• EU judges slam France’s migrant pushbacks

    Ruling examines decision to shut French border to non-EU nationals.

    The EU’s top court ruled against France’s policy of turning away migrants at its borders.

    The European Court of Justice announced on Thursday (https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2023-09/cp230145en.pdf) that those actions breached the EU’s rules on migrant returns.

    The ruling comes as France closed its border to Italy amid a recent surge in migrant arrivals to the Italian island of Lampedusa.

    France’s center-right Home Affairs Minister Gerard Darmanin had on Monday vowed that “France will not take in a single migrant from Lampedusa” after meeting his Italian counterpart Matteo Piantedosi in Rome (https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/mondo/2023/09/18/darmanin-la-francia-non-accogliera-migranti-da-lampedusa_2f53eae6-e8f7-4b82-9d7).

    But EU rules compel member countries to initiate a formal procedure when expelling an irregular migrant, and give that person sufficient time to leave the country.

    So-called pushbacks of migrants, or forcing a migrant directly back across a border, may only be carried out as a last resort, the judges in Luxembourg ruled.

    They also noted that non-EU citizens who lack permission to stay may not be turned away at internal EU borders.

    Commenting on the ruling, the European Commission’s Home Affairs spokesperson Anitta Hipper told a daily media briefing that “reintroducing [internal EU] border controls must remain an exceptional measure.” (https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-246319)

    She added that the EU executive is in consultations with countries that have sealed their borders.

    This ruling comes as the European Parliament’s home affairs committee on Wednesday backed legislation that allows EU countries to enact border controls only when faced with emergencies such as health or terrorism threats, and only for a limited time period.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-judges-slam-france-migrant-pushback

    #migrations #asile #réfugiés #frontière_sud-alpine #Italie #France #frontières #push-backs #refoulements #fermeture_des_frontières #Alpes #justice #C-143/22 #Cour_de_justice_de_l'Union_européenne (#CJUE) #frontières_intérieures

    • JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Border control, asylum and immigration – Regulation (EU) 2016/399 – Article 32 – Temporary reintroduction of border control by a Member State at its internal borders – Article 14 – Refusal of entry – Equation of internal borders with external borders – Directive 2008/115/EC – Scope – Article 2(2)(a))

      In Case C‑143/22,

      REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France), made by decision of 24 February 2022, received at the Court on 1 March 2022, in the proceedings

      Association Avocats pour la défense des droits des étrangers (ADDE),

      Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (ANAFE),

      Association de recherche, de communication et d’action pour l’accès aux traitements (ARCAT),

      Comité inter-mouvements auprès des évacués (Cimade),

      Fédération des associations de solidarité avec tou.te.s les immigré.e.s (FASTI),

      Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigré.e.s (GISTI),

      Ligue des droits de l’homme (LDH),

      Le paria,

      Syndicat des avocats de France (SAF),

      SOS – Hépatites Fédération

      v

      Ministre de l’Intérieur,

      intervening party :

      Défenseur des droits,

      THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

      composed of C. Lycourgos (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, L.S. Rossi, J.-C. Bonichot, S. Rodin and O. Spineanu-Matei, Judges,

      Advocate General : A. Rantos,

      Registrar : M. Krausenböck, Administrator,

      having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 19 January 2023,

      after considering the observations submitted on behalf of :

      – Association Avocats pour la défense des droits des étrangers (ADDE), Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (ANAFE), Association de recherche, de communication et d’action pour l’accès aux traitements (ARCAT), Comité inter-mouvements auprès des évacués (Cimade), Fédération des associations de solidarité avec tou.te.s les immigré.e.s (FASTI), Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigré.e.s (GISTI), Ligue des droits de l’homme (LDH), Le paria, Syndicat des avocats de France (SAF) and SOS – Hépatites Fédération, by P. Spinosi, lawyer,

      – the Défenseur des droits, by C. Hédon, Défenseure des droits, M. Cauvin and A. Guitton, acting as advisers, and by I. Zribi, lawyer,

      – the French Government, by A.-L. Desjonquères and J. Illouz, acting as Agents,

      – the Polish Government, by B. Majczyna, E. Borawska-Kędzierska and A. Siwek-Ślusarek, acting as Agents,

      – the European Commission, by A. Azéma, A. Katsimerou, T. Lilamand and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents,

      after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 30 March 2023,

      gives the following

      Judgment

      1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1, ‘the Schengen Borders Code’), and of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

      2 The request has been made in proceedings between Association Avocats pour la défense des droits des étrangers (ADDE), Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (ANAFE), Association de recherche, de communication et d’action pour l’accès aux traitements (ARCAT), Comité inter-mouvements auprès des évacués (Cimade), Fédération des associations de solidarité avec tou.te.s les immigré.e.s (FASTI), Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigré.e.s (GISTI), Ligue des droits de l’homme (LDH), Le Paria, Syndicat des avocats de France (SAF), SOS – Hépatites Fédération, and Ministre de l’Intérieur (Minister of the Interior, France) regarding the legality of the ordonnance no 2020-1733 du 16 décembre 2020 portant partie législative du code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile (Order No 2020-1733 of 16 December 2020, laying down the legislative part of the Code on Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum) (JORF of 30 December 2020, Text No 41).

      Legal context

      European Union law

      The Schengen Borders Code

      3 Pursuant to Article 2 of the Schengen Borders Code :

      ‘For the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions apply :

      1. “internal borders” means :

      (a) the common land borders, including river and lake borders, of the Member States ;

      (b) the airports of the Member States for internal flights ;

      (c) sea, river and lake ports of the Member States for regular internal ferry connections ;

      2. “external borders” means : the Member States’ land borders, including river and lake borders, sea borders and their airports, river ports, sea ports and lake ports, provided that they are not internal borders ;

      …’

      4 Title II of that code, which concerns ‘External Borders’, includes Articles 5 to 21.

      5 Article 14 of the code, entitled ‘Refusal of entry’, states :

      ‘1. A third-country national who does not fulfil all the entry conditions laid down in Article 6(1) and does not belong to the categories of persons referred to in Article 6(5) shall be refused entry to the territories of the Member States. This shall be without prejudice to the application of special provisions concerning the right of asylum and to international protection or the issue of long-stay visas.

      2. Entry may only be refused by a substantiated decision stating the precise reasons for the refusal. The decision shall be taken by an authority empowered by national law. It shall take effect immediately.

      The substantiated decision stating the precise reasons for the refusal shall be given by means of a standard form, as set out in Annex V, Part B, filled in by the authority empowered by national law to refuse entry. The completed standard form shall be handed to the third-country national concerned, who shall acknowledge receipt of the decision to refuse entry by means of that form.

      Data on third-country nationals whose entry for a short stay has been refused shall be registered in the EES in accordance with Article 6a(2) of this Regulation and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2017 establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of third-country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulations (EC) No 767/2008 and (EU) No 1077/2011 (OJ 2017 L 327, p. 20)].

      3. Persons refused entry shall have the right to appeal. Appeals shall be conducted in accordance with national law. A written indication of contact points able to provide information on representatives competent to act on behalf of the third-country national in accordance with national law shall also be given to the third-country national.

      Lodging such an appeal shall not have suspensive effect on a decision to refuse entry.

      Without prejudice to any compensation granted in accordance with national law, the third-country national concerned shall, where the appeal concludes that the decision to refuse entry was ill-founded, be entitled to the correction of the data entered in the EES or of the cancelled entry stamp, or both, and any other cancellations or additions which have been made, by the Member State which refused entry.

      4. The border guards shall ensure that a third-country national refused entry does not enter the territory of the Member State concerned.

      5. Member States shall collect statistics on the number of persons refused entry, the grounds for refusal, the nationality of the persons who were refused entry and the type of border (land, air or sea) at which they were refused entry and submit them yearly to the Commission (Eurostat) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 11 July 2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 23)].

      6. Detailed rules governing refusal of entry are given in Part A of Annex V.’

      6 Title III of the Schengen Borders Code, which concerns ‘Internal Borders’, includes Articles 22 to 35.

      7 Article 25 of that code, entitled ‘General framework for the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders’, provides :

      ‘Where, in the area without internal border control, there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security in a Member State, that Member State may exceptionally reintroduce border control at all or specific parts of its internal borders for a limited period of up to 30 days or for the foreseeable duration of the serious threat if its duration exceeds 30 days. The scope and duration of the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders shall not exceed what is strictly necessary to respond to the serious threat.’

      8 Article 32 of the Schengen Borders Code, entitled ‘Provisions to be applied where border control is reintroduced at internal borders’, provides :

      ‘Where border control at internal borders is reintroduced, the relevant provisions of Title II shall apply mutatis mutandis.’

      9 Annex V, Part A, of the Schengen Borders Code provides :

      ‘1. When refusing entry, the competent border guard shall :

      (a) fill in the standard form for refusing entry, as shown in Part B. The third-country national concerned shall sign the form and shall be given a copy of the signed form. Where the third-country national refuses to sign, the border guard shall indicate this refusal in the form under the section “comments” ;

      (b) for third-country nationals whose entry for a short stay has been refused, register in the EES the data on refusal of entry in accordance with Article 6a(2) of this Regulation and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 ;

      (c) annul or revoke the visas, as appropriate, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1)] ;

      (d) for third-country nationals whose refusals of entry are not to be registered into the EES, affix an entry stamp on the passport, cancelled by a cross in indelible black ink, and write opposite it on the right-hand side, also in indelible ink, the letter(s) corresponding to the reason(s) for refusing entry, the list of which is given on the standard form for refusing entry as shown in Part B of this Annex. In addition, for these categories of persons, the border guard shall record every refusal of entry in a register or on a list stating the identity and nationality of the third-country national concerned, the references of the document authorising the third-country national to cross the border and the reason for, and date of, refusal of entry.

      The practical arrangements for stamping are set out in Annex IV.

      2. If a third-country national who has been refused entry is brought to the border by a carrier, the authority responsible locally shall :

      (a) order the carrier to take charge of the third-country national and transport him or her without delay to the third country from which he or she was brought, to the third country which issued the document authorising him or her to cross the border, or to any other third country where he or she is guaranteed admittance, or to find means of onward transportation in accordance with Article 26 of the Schengen Convention and Council Directive 2001/51/EC [of 28 June 2001 supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 (OJ 2001 L 187, p. 45)] ;

      (b) pending onward transportation, take appropriate measures, in compliance with national law and having regard to local circumstances, to prevent third-country nationals who have been refused entry from entering illegally.

      …’

      10 Pursuant to Article 44 of that code, entitled ‘Repeal’ :

      ‘Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1)] is repealed.

      References to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex X.’

      11 In accordance with that correlation table, Article 14 of the Schengen Borders Code corresponds to Article 13 of Regulation No 562/2006.

      Directive 2008/115

      12 Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/115 states :

      ‘1. This Directive applies to third-country nationals staying illegally on the territory of a Member State.

      2. Member States may decide not to apply this Directive to third-country nationals who :

      (a) are subject to a refusal of entry in accordance with Article 13 of [Regulation No 562/2006], or who are apprehended or intercepted by the competent authorities in connection with the irregular crossing by land, sea or air of the external border of a Member State and who have not subsequently obtained an authorisation or a right to stay in that Member State ;

      (b) are subject to return as a criminal law sanction or as a consequence of a criminal law sanction, according to national law, or who are the subject of extradition procedures.’

      13 Article 3 of that directive provides :

      ‘For the purpose of this Directive the following definitions shall apply :

      2. “illegal stay” means the presence on the territory of a Member State, of a third-country national who does not fulfil, or no longer fulfils the conditions of entry as set out in Article 5 of [Regulation No 562/2006] or other conditions for entry, stay or residence in that Member State ;

      3. “return” means the process of a third-country national going back – whether in voluntary compliance with an obligation to return, or enforced – to :

      – his or her country of origin, or

      – a country of transit in accordance with Community or bilateral readmission agreements or other arrangements, or

      – another third country, to which the third-country national concerned voluntarily decides to return and in which he or she will be accepted ;

      …’

      14 Article 4(4) of the directive provides :

      ‘With regard to third-country nationals excluded from the scope of this Directive in accordance with Article 2(2)(a), Member States shall :

      (a) ensure that their treatment and level of protection are no less favourable than as set out in Article 8(4) and (5) (limitations on use of coercive measures), Article 9(2)(a) (postponement of removal), Article 14(1)(b) and (d) (emergency health care and taking into account needs of vulnerable persons), and Articles 16 and 17 (detention conditions) and

      (b) respect the principle of non-refoulement.’

      15 Article 5 of Directive 2008/115 provides :

      ‘When implementing this Directive, Member States shall take due account of :

      (a) the best interests of the child ;

      (b) family life ;

      (c) the state of health of the third-country national concerned,

      and respect the principle of non-refoulement.’

      16 Article 6 of that directive provides :

      ‘1. Member States shall issue a return decision to any third-country national staying illegally on their territory, without prejudice to the exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5.

      2. Third-country nationals staying illegally on the territory of a Member State and holding a valid residence permit or other authorisation offering a right to stay issued by another Member State shall be required to go to the territory of that other Member State immediately. In the event of non-compliance by the third-country national concerned with this requirement, or where the third-country national’s immediate departure is required for reasons of public policy or national security, paragraph 1 shall apply.

      3. Member States may refrain from issuing a return decision to a third-country national staying illegally on their territory if the third-country national concerned is taken back by another Member State under bilateral agreements or arrangements existing on the date of entry into force of this Directive. In such a case the Member State which has taken back the third-country national concerned shall apply paragraph 1.

      …’

      17 The first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of that directive provides :

      ‘A return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of between seven and thirty days, without prejudice to the exceptions referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4. Member States may provide in their national legislation that such a period shall be granted only following an application by the third-country national concerned. In such a case, Member States shall inform the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility of submitting such an application.’

      18 Article 15(1) of that directive provides :

      ‘Unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a specific case, Member States may only keep in detention a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process, in particular when :

      (a) there is a risk of absconding or

      (b) the third-country national concerned avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process.

      Any detention shall be for as short a period as possible and only maintained as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence.’

      French law

      19 Article L. 213-3-1 of the Code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile (Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum), in the version resulting from the loi no 2018-778, du 10 septembre 2018, pour une immigration maîtrisée, un droit d’asile effectif et une intégration réussie (Law No 2018-778 of 10 September 2018 for controlled immigration, an effective right of asylum and successful integration) (JORF of 11 September 2018, Text No 1) (‘the former Ceseda’), stated :

      ‘In the event of the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders provided for in Chapter II of Title III of the [Schengen Borders Code], the decisions referred to in Article L. 213-2 may be taken in respect of foreign nationals who have arrived directly from the territory of a State party to the Schengen Convention signed on 19 June 1990, who have entered the territory of Metropolitan France crossing an internal land border without being authorised to do so and were checked in an area between the border and a line drawn 10 kilometres behind it. The procedures for these checks are defined by decree in the Conseil d’État [(Council of State, France)].’

      20 Order No 2020-1733 recast the legislative part of the Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum. Article L. 332-2 of that code, as amended (‘the amended Ceseda’) provides :

      ‘The decision refusing entry, which shall be in writing and substantiated, shall be taken by an officer belonging to a category prescribed by regulations.

      The notification of the decision refusing entry shall state that the foreign national has the right to inform, or cause to be informed, the person he or she has indicated that he or she intended to visit, his or her consulate or the adviser of his or her choice. It shall state that the foreign national has the right to refuse to be repatriated before one clear day has passed, under the conditions laid down in Article L. 333-2.

      The decision and the notification of rights which accompanies it shall be provided to him in a language he or she understands.

      Particular attention shall be paid to vulnerable persons, especially minors whether accompanied by an adult or not.’

      21 Article L. 332-3 of the amended Ceseda provides :

      ‘The procedure laid down in Article L. 332-2 is applicable to the decision to refuse entry taken against the foreign national pursuant to Article 6 of the [Schengen Borders Code]. It shall also apply to checks carried out at an internal border in the event of the temporary reintroduction of checks at internal borders under the conditions laid down in Chapter II of Title III of the [Schengen Borders Code].’

      The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling

      22 The associations referred to in paragraph 2 of the present judgment are challenging the validity of Order No 2020-1733 before the Conseil d’État (Council of State), in an action for annulment of that order, on the grounds, inter alia, that Article L. 332-3 of the amended Ceseda resulting from it infringes Directive 2008/115 in that it allows decisions to refuse entry at internal borders where checks have been reintroduced.

      23 The referring court observes that the Court held, in its judgment of 19 March 2019, Arib and Others (C‑444/17, EU:C:2019:220), that Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/115, read in conjunction with Article 32 of the Schengen Borders Code, does not apply to the situation of an illegally staying third-country national who was apprehended in the immediate vicinity of an internal border of a Member State, even where that Member State has reintroduced border control at that border, pursuant to Article 25 of that code, on account of a serious threat to public policy or to internal security in that Member State.

      24 The Conseil d’État (Council of State) points out that, in its Decision No 428175 of 27 November 2020, it held that the provisions of Article L. 213-3-1 of the former Ceseda, which provided that in the event of the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders, a foreign national arriving directly from the territory of a State party to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen on 19 June 1990 and which entered into force on 26 March 1995 (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19, ‘the Schengen Convention’), could be refused entry under the terms of Article L. 213-2 of the former Ceseda if he or entered the territory of Metropolitan France crossing an internal land border without being authorised to do so and was checked in an area between the border and a line drawn 10 kilometres inside that border, were contrary to Directive 2008/115.

      25 Admittedly, according to the Conseil d’État (Council of State), Article L. 332-3 of the amended Ceseda does not repeat the provisions of Article L. 213-3-1 of the former Ceseda. However, Article L. 332-3 of the amended Ceseda again provides only for the adoption of a refusal of entry while carrying out border checks at internal borders in the event of the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders under the conditions laid down in Chapter II of Title III of the Schengen Borders Code.

      26 That court therefore considers it necessary to determine whether, in such a case, a third-country national arriving directly from the territory of a State party to the Schengen Convention who presents themselves at an authorised stationary or mobile border crossing point, without being in possession of documents justifying an authorisation to enter or right to stay in France, may be refused entry on the basis of Article 14 of the Schengen Borders Code, without Directive 2008/115 being applicable.

      27 In those circumstances, the Conseil d’État (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling :

      ‘In the event of the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders, under the conditions laid down in Chapter II of Title III of [the Schengen Borders Code], can foreign nationals arriving directly from the territory of a State party to the Schengen Convention … be refused entry, when entry checks are carried out at that border, on the basis of Article 14 of that [code], without [Directive 2008/115] being applicable ?’

      Consideration of the question referred

      28 By its question referred for a preliminary ruling, the national court asks, in essence, whether the Schengen Borders Code and Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has reintroduced checks at its internal borders, it may adopt, in respect of a third-country national who presents himself or herself at an authorised border crossing point where such checks are carried out, a decision refusing entry, within the meaning of Article 14 of that code, without being subject to compliance with that directive.

      29 Article 25 of the Schengen Borders Code allows, exceptionally and under certain conditions, a Member State to reintroduce temporarily border control at all or specific parts of its internal borders where there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security in that Member State. Under Article 32 of the code, where border control at internal borders is reintroduced, the relevant provisions of the Title II of the code relating to external borders shall apply mutatis mutandis.

      30 That is the case with Article 14 of the Schengen Borders Code, which provides that a third-country national who does not fulfil all the entry conditions laid down in Article 6(1) and does not belong to the categories of persons referred to in Article 6(5) shall be refused entry to the territories of the Member States.

      31 However, it is important to remember that a third-country national who, after entering the territory of a Member State illegally is present on that territory without fulfilling the conditions for entry, stay or residence is, therefore, staying illegally, within the meaning of Directive 2008/115. Under Article 2(1) of that directive, and without prejudice to Article 2(2) of the directive, that third-country national falls within the scope of the directive, without his or her presence in the territory of the Member State concerned being subject to a condition as to minimum duration or intention to remain in that territory. He or she must therefore, in principle, be subject to the common standards and procedures laid down by the directive for the purpose of his or her removal, as long as his or her stay has not, as the case may be, been regularised (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 March 2019, Arib and Others, C‑444/17, EU:C:2019:220, paragraphs 37 and 39 and the case-law cited).

      32 This also applies where the third-country national has been apprehended at a border crossing point, provided that the border crossing point is on the territory of that Member State. In that respect, it should be noted that a person may have entered the territory of a Member State even before crossing a border crossing point (see, by analogy, judgment of 5 February 2020, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Signing-on of seamen in the port of Rotterdam), C‑341/18, EU:C:2020:76, paragraph 45).

      33 It should also be specified, by way of example, that when checks are carried out on board a train between the time when the train leaves the last station located on the territory of a Member State sharing an internal border with a Member State that has reintroduced checks at its internal borders, and the moment when that train enters the first station situated on the territory of the latter Member State, the check on board that same train must, unless otherwise agreed between those two Member States, be regarded as a check carried out at a border crossing point situated on the territory of the Member State which has reintroduced such checks. A third-country national who has been checked on board this train will necessarily remain on the territory of the latter Member State following the check, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2008/115.

      34 However, it should also be noted that Article 2(2) of Directive 2008/115 allows Member States to exclude, exceptionally and under certain conditions, third-country nationals who are staying illegally on their territory from the scope of that directive.

      35 Thus, on the one hand, Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/115 allows Member States not to apply that directive, subject to the provisions of Article 4(4) thereof, in two specific situations, namely that of third-country nationals who are the subject to a refusal of entry at an external border of a Member State, in accordance with Article 14 of the Schengen Borders Code, or that of third-country nationals who are apprehended or intercepted in connection with the irregular crossing of such an external border and who have not subsequently obtained authorisation or a right to reside in that Member State.

      36 However, it is clear from the Court’s case-law that those two situations relate exclusively to the crossing of an external border of a Member State, as defined in Article 2 of the Schengen Borders Code, and do not therefore concern the crossing of a border common to Member States forming part of the Schengen area, even where checks have been reintroduced at that border, pursuant to Article 25 of that code, on account of a serious threat to public policy or the internal security of that Member State (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 March 2019, Arib and Others, C‑444/17, EU:C:2019:220, paragraphs 45 and 67).

      37 It follows, as the Advocate General pointed out in point 35 of his Opinion, that Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/115 does not authorise a Member State which has reintroduced checks at its internal borders to derogate from the common standards and procedures laid down by that directive in order to remove a third-country national who has been intercepted, without a valid residence permit, at one of the border crossing points situated in the territory of that Member State where such checks are carried out.

      38 On the other hand, although Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2008/115 authorises Member States not to apply that directive to third-country nationals who are subject to a criminal penalty providing for or resulting in their return, in accordance with national law, or who are subject to extradition proceedings, it must be noted that such a case is not the one referred to by the provision at issue in the main proceedings.

      39 It follows from the foregoing, first, that a Member State which has reintroduced checks at its internal borders may apply, mutatis mutandis, Article 14 of the Schengen Borders Code and paragraph 1 of Part A of Annex V to that code in respect of a third-country national who is intercepted, without a legal residence permit, at an authorised border crossing point where such checks are carried out.

      40 On the other hand, where the border crossing point is located on the territory of the Member State concerned, the latter must ensure that the consequences of such application, mutatis mutandis, of the provisions referred to in the previous point do not result in disregard of the common standards and procedures laid down in Directive 2008/115. The fact that this obligation on the Member State concerned is likely to render ineffective to a large extent any decision to refuse entry to a third-country national arriving at one of its internal borders is not such as to alter that finding.

      41 With regard to the relevant provisions of that directive, it should be recalled, in particular, that it follows from Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/115 that any third-country national staying illegally on the territory of a Member State must, without prejudice to the exceptions provided for in paragraphs 2 to 5 of that article and in strict compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 5 of that directive, be the subject of a return decision, which must identify, among the third countries referred to in Article 3(3) of that directive, the country to which he or she must return (judgment of 22 November 2022, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Removal – Medicinal cannabis), C‑69/21, EU:C:2022:913, paragraph 53).

      42 In addition, a third-country national who is the subject of such a return decision must still, in principle, be given, under Article 7 of Directive 2008/115, a certain period of time in which to leave the territory of the Member State concerned voluntarily. Forced removal is to take place only as a last resort, in accordance with Article 8 of that directive, and subject to Article 9 thereof, which requires Member States to postpone removal in the cases it sets out (judgment of 17 December 2020, Commission v Hungary (Reception of applicants for international protection), C‑808/18, EU:C:2020:1029, paragraph 252).

      43 Furthermore, it follows from Article 15 of Directive 2008/115 that the detention of an illegally staying third-country national may only be imposed in certain specific cases. However, as the Advocate General pointed out, in essence, in point 46 of his Opinion, that article does not preclude a national from being detained, pending his or her removal, where he or she represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to public policy or domestic security, provided that such detention complies with the conditions set out in Articles 15 to 18 of that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 July 2020, Stadt Frankfurt am Main, C‑18/19, EU:C:2020:511, paragraphs 41 to 48).

      44 Furthermore, Directive 2008/115 does not rule out the possibility for Member States to impose a prison sentence for offences other than those relating solely to illegal entry, including in situations where the return procedure established by that directive has not yet been completed. Consequently, that directive also does not preclude the arrest or placing in police custody of an illegally staying third-country national where such measures are adopted on the ground that that national is suspected of having committed an offence other than simply entering the national territory illegally, and in particular an offence likely to threaten public policy or the internal security of the Member State concerned (judgment of 19 March 2019, Arib and Others, C‑444/17, EU:C:2019:220, paragraph 66).

      45 It follows that, contrary to what the French Government maintains, the application, in a case such as that referred to in the reference for a preliminary ruling, of the common standards and procedures laid down by Directive 2008/115 is not such as to make it impossible to maintain public order and safeguard internal security within the meaning of Article 72 TFEU.

      46 In light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling is that the Schengen Borders Code and Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has reintroduced controls at its internal borders, it may adopt, in respect of a third-country national who presents himself or herself at an authorised border crossing point situated on its territory and where such controls are carried out, a decision refusing entry, by virtue of an application mutatis mutandis of Article 14 of that code, provided that the common standards and procedures laid down by that directive are applied to that national with a view to his or her removal.

      Costs

      47 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

      On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules :

      Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) and Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals,

      must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has reintroduced controls at its internal borders, it may adopt, in respect of a third-country national who presents himself or herself at an authorised border crossing point situated on its territory and where such controls are carried out, a decision refusing entry, by virtue of an application mutatis mutandis of Article 14 of that regulation, provided that the common standards and procedures laid down in that directive are applied to that national with a view to his or her removal.

      https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62022CJ0143

    • Contrôle des frontières : le gouvernement contraint de sortir de l’illégalité

      Communiqué commun signé par la LDH

      Après 8 ans de pratiques illégales du gouvernement français en matière de contrôle et d’enfermement des personnes en migration aux frontières intérieures, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) confirme, dans un arrêt du 21 septembre, qu’elles sont contraires au droit.

      La CJUE rappelle à la France qu’elle doit se conformer au droit de l’Union européenne, et il appartient au gouvernement français de prendre des mesures immédiates sans attendre que le Conseil d’État en tire toutes les conséquences.

      Associations signataires : Avocats pour la Défense des Droits des Etrangers (ADDE), Alliance-DEDF, Amnesty International France, Anafé (association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les personnes étrangères), Bizi migrant.es, Emmaüs Roya, Federation Etorkinekin Diakité, Gisti, La Cimade, LDH (Ligue des droits de l’Homme), Médecins du Monde, Roya citoyenne, Syndicat des avocats de France (Saf), Syndicat de la magistrature (SM), Tous Migrants, Tous Migrants 73, Utopia 56 (antenne Toulouse)

      Paris, le 21 septembre 2023

      https://www.ldh-france.org/controle-des-frontieres-le-gouvernement-contraint-de-sortir-de-lillegali

    • Corte di giustizia UE: vietato il respingimento sistematico alle frontiere interne

      La sentenza della Corte nella causa #C-143/22 promossa da diverse associazioni francesi

      Il 21 settembre 2023 una sentenza della Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea (CGUE) ha dichiarato che, anche se un Paese UE ha introdotto controlli alle sue frontiere, non ha il diritto di effettuare respingimenti sistematici. Deve rispettare la direttiva europea «rimpatri» che prevede che a un cittadino extraeuropeo possa “essere concesso un certo periodo di tempo per lasciare volontariamente il territorio“.

      Tutto era partito dal ricorso di varie associazioni francesi 1 che hanno contestato dinanzi al Consiglio di Stato francese la legittimità di un’ordinanza che ha modificato il codice sull’ingresso e sul soggiorno degli stranieri e sul diritto d’asilo (Ceseda).

      Esse hanno sostenuto che, consentendo alle autorità francesi di rifiutare l’ingresso di cittadini di paesi terzi alle frontiere con altri Stati membri (ossia le «frontiere interne»), alle quali sia stato temporaneamente ripristinato un controllo di frontiera in forza del codice frontiere Schengen in ragione di una minaccia grave per l’ordine pubblico o la sicurezza interna della Francia, il Ceseda contravverrebbe alla direttiva «rimpatri». Secondo tale direttiva, qualsiasi cittadino di un paese terzo il cui soggiorno è irregolare deve, di norma, essere oggetto di una decisione di rimpatrio. Tuttavia, l’interessato deve, in linea di principio, beneficiare di un certo termine per lasciare volontariamente il territorio. L’allontanamento forzato avviene solo in ultima istanza.

      Il Consiglio di Stato ha quindi interrogato la CGUE sulla questione dichiarando che «in una situazione del genere, un provvedimento di respingimento può essere adottato sulla base del codice frontiere #Schengen ma che, ai fini dell’allontanamento dell’interessato, devono comunque essere rispettate le norme e le procedure comuni previste dalla direttiva “rimpatri” (https://openmigration.org/glossary-term/direttiva-rimpatri), il che può condurre a privare di una larga parte della sua utilità l’adozione di un siffatto provvedimento di respingimento».

      «La sentenza della CGUE impone la giurisprudenza a tutti gli Stati membri dell’Unione europea, ma in particolare è rivolta alla Francia, che dal 2015 ha reintrodotto i controlli alle frontiere interne.»

      Negli ultimi otto anni, tutti i treni che passano per #Menton sono stati controllati, gli agenti di polizia hanno controllato i passaggi di frontiera e pattugliato i valichi alpini. Dal 1° giugno è ulteriormente stata dispiegata un militarizzazione delle frontiere con personale aggiuntivo, il supporto dell’esercito, droni con termocamere.

      La Francia è stata accusata di respingere le persone migranti che cercano di entrare nel Paese, anche quelli che chiedono asilo e perfino i minorenni. Diversi rapporti di organizzazioni e collettivi hanno messo in luce queste pratiche violente e illegali, soprattutto nella zona di Ventimiglia. Secondo le testimonianze raccolte, si tratta di respingimenti “sistematici”.

      «In poche parole, questa decisione dice che la Francia sta perseguendo una politica illegale di chiusura delle frontiere», riassume Flor Tercero, dell’Association pour le Droit des Etrangers (ADDE) intervistato da Infomigrants. Questa decisione «è chiaramente una vittoria» e «significa che il governo non può ignorare il diritto dell’Unione europea».

      https://www.meltingpot.org/2023/09/corte-di-giustizia-ue-vietato-il-respingimento-sistematico-alle-frontier

      #frontières_intérieures #directive_retour #illégalité

    • European Court of Justice rules systematic pushbacks are illegal

      European countries do not have the right to refuse entry to irregular migrants even if they have border controls in place, the ECJ has ruled. Activists say the decision means that France has been violating EU law by pushing back migrants coming from Italy.

      When a member state decides to reintroduce checks at its internal borders, can it systematically refuse entry to all irregular foreign nationals? No, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) ruled earlier this month. It must comply with the “Return Directive,” a law which says that a non-European national can “be granted a certain period of time to voluntarily leave the territory.”

      “A decision to refuse entry may be decided but, when seeking the removal of the person concerned, the common standards and procedures provided for by the Return Directive must still be respected,” the Luxembourg court stated.

      It also said that “excluding from the scope of this directive foreign nationals who are staying irregularly in the territory” can only be done “exceptionally.”

      The ruling on September 21 is at odds with the policy pursued by France, which re-established controls at its internal EU borders in 2015. For the past eight years, all trains passing through the French coastal city of Menton have been checked, and police have monitored border posts and patrolled the Alps.

      Activist groups say France has been taking advantage of the temporary border controls in order to turn back migrants who try to enter the territory — even those who come to ask for asylum. In an August report, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) teams in Ventimiglia documented practices of pushbacks at the border between Italy and France. “Systematic” pushbacks target unaccompanied minors, even sometimes separating families, according to the report.
      ’An illegal policy’

      “In a nutshell, this decision means that France is pursuing an illegal policy of closing borders,” Flor Tercero, of the Association for Foreigners’ Rights (ADDE), told InfoMigrants. ADDE is one of the associations involved in bringing the lawsuit to court.

      “Pushing back means, in a way, refusing these people the possibility of coming to France to apply for asylum or to cross France to go elsewhere in the EU. France for eight years has decided to carry out border checks. And as it re-established checks, it considered itself entitled to be able to push back migrants coming from Italy, in particular,” he added.

      “After eight years of illegal practices by the French government controlling and detaining migrants at internal borders, the CJEU confirms (...) that [these practices] are contrary to the law,” a joint press release of twenty organizations added.

      https://twitter.com/anafeasso/status/1704893792266969108

      For Flor Tercero, this decision is a clear victory. “This means that the government cannot forego European law,” he said.
      France ’will not welcome migrants’ from Lampedusa

      The court decision came at a time when attention was focused on the French-Italian border. Following the recent arrival of a very large number of people on the Italian island of Lampedusa, the French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, announced that 200 additional police officers would be sent to the border between the two countries, in the expectation that the migrants would eventually make their way from Italy to France.

      France “will not welcome migrants” from the Italian island, the minister stated.

      Meanwhile the departmental director of the border police, Emmanuelle Joubert, announced that more than 3,000 migrants had been arrested in Menton within a fortnight. This brings to 32,000 the number of arrests since the start of the year along the Franco-Italian border. Of those, 24,000 were rejected and handed over to the Italian authorities

      Joubert said she had been informed about the judgment by the CJEU. “The State is carrying out an analysis, we will have instructions later,” she said, adding that migrants who had recently arrived in Lampedusa should not arrive at the French border for “several weeks.”

      https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/52117/european-court-of-justice-rules-systematic-pushbacks-are-illegal

  • Grèce. Le « #mur_flottant » visant à arrêter les personnes réfugiées mettra des vies en danger

    En réaction à la proposition du gouvernement d’installer un système de #barrages_flottants de 2,7 km le long des côtes de #Lesbos pour décourager les nouvelles arrivées de demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile depuis la Turquie, Massimo Moratti, directeur des recherches pour le bureau européen d’Amnesty International, a déclaré :

    « Cette proposition marque une escalade inquiétante dans les tentatives du gouvernement grec de rendre aussi difficile que possible l’arrivée de personnes demandeuses d’asile et réfugiées sur ses rivages. Cela exposerait davantage aux #dangers celles et ceux qui cherchent désespérément la sécurité.

    « Ce plan soulève des questions préoccupantes sur la possibilité pour les sauveteurs de continuer d’apporter leur aide salvatrice aux personnes qui tentent la dangereuse traversée par la mer jusqu’à Lesbos. Le gouvernement doit clarifier de toute urgence les détails pratiques et les garanties nécessaires pour veiller à ce que ce système ne coûte pas de nouvelles vies. »

    Complément d’information

    Le système de barrage flottant ferait partie des mesures adoptées dans le cadre d’une tentative plus large de sécuriser les #frontières_maritimes et d’empêcher les arrivées.

    En 2019, près de 60 000 personnes sont arrivées en Grèce par la mer, soit presque deux fois plus qu’en 2018. Entre janvier et octobre, l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) a enregistré 66 décès sur la route de la Méditerranée orientale.

    https://www.amnesty.org/fr/latest/news/2020/01/greece-floating-wall-to-stop-refugees-puts-lives-at-risk
    #migrations #frontières #asile #réfugiés #Grèce #Mer_Méditerranée #Mer_Egée #fermeture_des_frontières #frontière_mobile #frontières_mobiles

    ping @karine4 @mobileborders

    • Greece plans floating border barrier to stop migrants

      The government in Greece wants to use a floating barrier to help stop migrants from reaching the Greek islands from the nearby coast of Turkey.
      The Defense Ministry has invited private contractors to bid on supplying a 2.7-kilometer-long (1.7 miles) floating fence within three months, according to information available on a government procurement website Wednesday. No details were given on when the barrier might be installed.
      A resurgence in the number of migrants and refugees arriving by sea to Lesbos and other eastern Greek islands has caused severe overcrowding at refugee camps.
      The netted barrier would rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) above water and be designed to hold flashing lights, the submission said. The Defense Ministry estimates the project will cost 500,000 euros ($550,000), which includes four years of maintenance.
      The government’s description says the “floating barrier system” needs to be built “with non-military specifications” and “specific features for carrying out the mission of (maritime agencies) in managing the refugee crisis.”
      “This contract process will be executed by the Defense Ministry but is for civilian use — a process similar to that used for the supply of other equipment for (camps) housing refugees and migrants,” a government official told The Associated Press.
      The official asked not to be identified pending official announcements by the government.
      Greece’s six-month old center-right government has promised to take a tougher line on the migration crisis and plans to set up detention facilities for migrants denied asylum and to speed up deportations back to Turkey.
      Under a 2016 migration agreement between the European Union and Turkey, the Turkish government was promised up to 6 billion euros to help stop the mass movement of migrants to Europe.
      Nearly 60,000 migrants and refugees made the crossing to the islands last year, nearly double the number recorded in 2018, according to data from the United Nations’ refugee agency.

      https://www.arabnews.com/node/1619991/world

    • Greece wants floating fence to keep migrants out

      Greece wants to install a floating barrier in the Aegean Sea to deter migrants arriving at its islands’ shores through Turkey, government officials said on Thursday.

      Greece served as the gateway to the European Union for more than one million Syrian refugees and other migrants in recent years. While an agreement with Turkey sharply reduced the number attempting the voyage since 2016, Greek islands still struggle with overcrowded camps operating far beyond their capacity.

      The 2.7 kilometer long (1.68 miles) net-like barrier that Greece wants to buy will be set up in the sea off the island of Lesbos, where the overcrowded Moria camp operates.

      It will rise 50 centimeters above sea level and carry light marks that will make it visible at night, a government document inviting vendors to submit offers said, adding that it was “aimed at containing the increasing inflows of migrants”.

      “The invitation for floating barriers is in the right direction,” Defence Minister Nikos Panagiotopoulos told Skai Radio. “We will see what the result, what its effect as a deterrent will be in practice.”

      “It will be a natural barrier. If it works like the one in Evros... it can be effective,” he said, referring to a cement and barbed-wire fence Greece set up in 2012 along its northern border with Turkey to stop a rise in migrants crossing there.

      Aid groups, which have described the living conditions at migrant camps as appalling, said fences in Europe had not deterred arrivals and that Greece should focus on speeding up the processing of asylum requests instead.

      “We see, in recent years, a surge in the number of barriers that are being erected but yet people continue to flee,” Βoris Cheshirkov, spokesman in Greece for U.N. refugee agency UNHCR, told Reuters. “Greece has to have fast procedures to ensure that people have access to asylum quickly when they need it.”

      Last year, 59,726 migrants and refugees reached Greece’s shores according to the UN agency UNHCR. Nearly 80% of them arrived on Chios, Samos and Lesbos.

      A defense ministry official told Reuters the floating fence would be installed at the north of Lesbos, where migrants attempt to cross over due to the short distance from Turkey.

      If the 500,000 euro barrier is effective, more parts may be added and it could reach up to 15 kilometers, the official said.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-greece-barrier/greece-wants-floating-fence-to-keep-migrants-out-idUSKBN1ZT0W5?il=0

    • La Grèce veut ériger une frontière flottante sur la mer pour limiter l’afflux de migrants

      Le ministère grec de la Défense a rendu public mercredi un appel d’offres pour faire installer un "système de protection flottant" en mer Égée. L’objectif : réduire les flux migratoires en provenance de la Turquie alors que la Grèce est redevenue en 2019 la première porte d’entrée des migrants en Europe.

      C’est un appel d’offres surprenant qu’a diffusé, mercredi 29 janvier, le ministère grec de la Défense : une entreprise est actuellement recherchée pour procéder à l’installation d’un “système de protection flottant” en mer Égée. Cette frontière maritime qui pourra prendre la forme de "barrières" ou de "filets" doit servir "en cas d’urgence" à repousser les migrants en provenance de la Turquie voisine.

      Selon le texte de l’appel d’offres, le barrage - d’une “longueur de 2,7 kilomètres” et d’une hauteur de 1,10 mètre dont 50 cm au dessus du niveau de la mer - sera mis en place par les forces armées grecques. Il devrait être agrémenté de feux clignotants pour une meilleure visibilité. Le budget total comprenant conception et installation annoncé par le gouvernement est de 500 000 euros.

      “Au-delà de l’efficacité douteuse de ce choix, comme ne pas reconnaître la dimension humanitaire de la tragédie des réfugiés et la transformer en un jeu du chat et de la souris, il est amusant de noter la taille de la barrière et de la relier aux affirmations du gouvernement selon lesquelles cela pourrait arrêter les flux de réfugiés”, note le site d’information Chios News qui a tracé cette potentielle frontière maritime sur une carte à bonne échelle pour comparer les 2,7 kilomètres avec la taille de l’île de Lesbos.

      La question des migrants et des réfugiés est gérée par le ministère de l’Immigration qui a fait récemment sa réapparition après avoir été fusionné avec un autre cabinet pendant six mois. Devant l’ampleur des flux migratoires que connaît la Grèce depuis 2015, le ministère de la Défense et l’armée offrent un soutien logistique au ministère de l’Immigration et de l’Asile.

      Mais la situation continue de se corser pour la Grèce qui est redevenue en 2019 la première porte d’entrée des migrants et des réfugiés en Europe. Actuellement, plus de 40 000 demandeurs d’asile s’entassent dans des camps insalubres sur des îles grecques de la mer Égée, alors que leur capacité n’est que de 6 200 personnes.

      Le nouveau Premier ministre Kyriakos Mitsotakis, élu à l’été 2019, a fait de la lutte contre l’immigration clandestine l’une de ses priorités. Il a déjà notamment durci l’accès à la procédure de demande d’asile. Il compte également accélérer les rapatriements des personnes qui "n’ont pas besoin d’une protection internationale" ou des déboutés du droit d’asile, une mesure à laquelle s’opposent des ONG de défense des droits de l’Homme.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/22441/la-grece-veut-eriger-une-frontiere-flottante-sur-la-mer-pour-limiter-l

    • Vidéo avec la réponse d’ #Adalbert_Jahnz, porte-parole de la Commission Européenne, à la question de la légalité d’une telle mesure.
      La réponse est mi-figue, mi-raisin : les réfugiés ne doivent pas être empêchés par des #barrières_physiques à déposer une demande d’asile, mais la mise en place de telles #barrières n’est pas en soi contraire à la législation européenne et la protection de frontières externes relève principalement de la responsabilité de chaque Etat membre : https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-183932

      signalé, avec le commentaire ci-dessus, par Vicky Skoumbi.

    • Greece’s Answer to Migrants, a Floating Barrier, Is Called a ‘Disgrace’

      Rights groups have condemned the plan, warning that it would increase the dangers faced by asylum seekers.

      As Greece struggles to deal with a seemingly endless influx of migrants from neighboring Turkey, the conservative government has a contentious new plan to respond to the problem: a floating net barrier to avert smuggling boats.

      But rights groups have condemned the plan, warning that it would increase the perils faced by asylum seekers amid growing tensions at camps on the Aegean Islands and in communities there and on the mainland. The potential effectiveness of the barrier system has also been widely questioned, and the center-right daily newspaper Kathimerini dismissed the idea in an editorial on Friday as “wishful thinking.”

      Moreover, the main opposition party, the leftist Syriza, has condemned the floating barrier plan as “a disgrace and an insult to humanity.”

      The authorities aim to install a 1.7-mile barrier between the Greek and Turkish coastlines that would rise more than 19 inches above the water and display flashing lights, according to a description posted on a government website this past week by Greece’s Defense Ministry.

      Citing an “urgent need to address rising refugee flows,” the 126-page submission invited private contractors to bid for the project that would cost an estimated 500,000 euros, or more than $554,000, including the cost of four years of maintenance. The government is expected to assign the job in the next three months, though it is unclear when the barrier would be erected.

      Greece’s defense minister, Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos, told Greek radio on Thursday that he hoped the floating barrier would act as a deterrent to smugglers, similar to a barbed-wire fence that the Greek authorities built along the northern land border with Turkey in 2012.

      “In Evros, physical barriers had a relative impact in curbing flows,” he said. “We believe a similar result can be achieved with these floating barriers.”

      The construction will be overseen by the Defense Ministry, which has supervised the creation of new reception centers on the Greek islands and mainland in recent months, and will be subject to “nonmilitary specifications” to meet international maritime standards, the submission noted.

      A spokesman for Greece’s government, Stelios Petsas, said the barrier system would have to be tested for safety.

      But rights activists warn that the measure would increase the dangers faced by migrants making the short but perilous journey across the Aegean. Amnesty International’s research director for Europe, Massimo Moratti, condemned the proposal as “an alarming escalation in the Greek government’s ongoing efforts to make it as difficult as possible for asylum-seekers and refugees to arrive on its shores.”

      He warned that it could “lead to more danger for those desperately seeking safety.”

      The head of Amnesty International’s chapter in Greece, Gavriil Sakellaridis, questioned whether the Greek authorities would respond to an emergency signal issued by a boat stopped at the barrier.

      The European Commission has expressed reservations and planned to ask the authorities in Greece, which is a member of the European Union, for details about the proposal. Adalbert Jahnz, a commission spokesman, told reporters in Brussels on Thursday that any Greek sea barriers to deter migrants must not block access for asylum seekers.

      “The setting up of barriers is not in and of itself against E.U. law,” he said. “But physical barriers or obstacles of this sort should not be an impediment to seeking asylum which is protected by E.U. law,” he said, conceding, however, that the protection of external borders was primarily the responsibility of member states.

      The barrier was proposed amid an uptick in migrants from Turkey. The influx, though far below the thousands of daily arrivals at the peak of the crisis in 2015, has put an increasing strain on already intensely overcrowded reception centers.

      According to Greece’s migration minister, Notis Mitarakis, 72,000 migrants entered Greece last year, compared with 42,000 in 2018. The floating barrier will help curb arrivals, Mr. Mitarakis said.
      Editors’ Picks
      Michael Strahan on Kelly Ripa, Colin Kaepernick and How to Fix the Giants
      ‘Taylor Swift: Miss Americana’ Review: A Star, Scathingly Alone
      The Survivor of Auschwitz Who Painted a Forgotten Genocide

      “It sends out the message that we are not a place where anything goes and that we’re taking all necessary measures to protect the borders,” he said, adding that the process of deporting migrants who did not merit refugee status would be sped up.

      “The rules have changed,” he said.

      Greece has repeatedly appealed for more support from the bloc to tackle migration flows, saying it cannot handle the burden alone and accusing Turkey of exploiting the refugee crisis for leverage with the European Union.

      Repeated threats by Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to “open the gates” to Europe for Syrian refugees on his country’s territory have fueled fears that an agreement signed between Turkey and the European Union in 2016, which radically curbed arrivals, will collapse.

      Growing tensions between Greece and Turkey over energy resources in the Eastern Mediterranean and revived disputes over sovereignty in the Aegean have further undermined cooperation between the two traditional foes in curbing human trafficking, fragile at the best of times.

      The Greek government of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis is also under growing pressure domestically since it came to power last summer on a pledge to take a harder line on migration than that of his predecessor, Alexis Tsipras of Syriza.

      Plans unveiled in November to create new camps on the Aegean Islands have angered residents, who staged mass demonstrations last month, waving banners reading, “We want our islands back.”

      Rights groups have also warned of the increasingly dire conditions at existing camps on five islands hosting some 44,000 people, nearly 10 times their capacity.

      Tensions are particularly acute on the sprawling Moria camp on Lesbos, with reports of 30 stabbings in the past month, two fatal.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/01/world/europe/greece-migrants-floating-barrier.html

    • Greece plans to build sea barrier off Lesbos to deter migrants

      Defence ministry says floating barrier will stop migrants crossing from Turkey.

      The Greek government has been criticised after announcing it will build a floating barrier to deter thousands of people from making often perilous sea journeys from Turkey to Aegean islands on Europe’s periphery.

      The centre-right administration unveiled the measure on Thursday, following its pledge to take a tougher stance on undocumented migrants accessing the country.

      The 2.7km-long netted barrier will be erected off Lesbos, the island that shot to prominence at the height of the Syrian civil war when close to a million Europe-bound refugees landed on its beaches. The bulwark will rise from pylons 50 metres above water and will be equipped with flashing lights to demarcate Greece’s sea borders.

      Greece’s defence minister, Nikos Panagiotopoulos, told Skai radio: “In Evros, natural barriers had relative [good] results in containing flows,” referring to the barbed-wire topped fence that Greece built along its northern land border with Turkey in 2012 to deter asylum seekers. “We believe a similar result can be had with these floating barriers. We are trying to find solutions to reduce flows.”

      Amnesty International slammed the plan, warning it would enhance the dangers asylum-seekers and refugees encountered as they attempted to seek safety.

      “This proposal marks an alarming escalation in the Greek government’s ongoing efforts to make it as difficult as possible for asylum-seekers and refugees to arrive on its shores,” said Massimo Moratti, the group’s Research Director for Europe.“The plan raises serious issues about rescuers’ ability to continue providing life-saving assistance to people attempting the dangerous sea crossing to Lesbos. The government must urgently clarify the operational details and necessary safeguards to ensure that this system does not cost further lives.”

      Greece’s former migration minister, Dimitris Vitsas, described the barrier as a “stupid idea” that was bound to be ineffective. “The idea that a fence of this length is going to work is totally stupid,” he said. “It’s not going to stop anybody making the journey.”

      Greece has seen more arrivals of refugees and migrants than any other part of Europe over the past year, as human traffickers along Turkey’s western coast target its outlying Aegean isles with renewed vigour. More than 44,000 people are in camps on the outposts designed to hold no more than 5,400 people. Human rights groups have described conditions in the facilities as deplorable. In Moria, the main reception centre on Lesbos, about 140 sick children are among an estimated 19,000 men, women and children crammed into vastly overcrowded tents and containers.

      Amid mounting tensions with Turkey over energy resources in the Mediterranean, Greece fears a further surge in arrivals in the spring despite numbers dropping radically since the EU struck a landmark accord with Ankara to curb the flows in March 2016.

      The prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, who trounced his predecessor, Alexis Tsipras, in July partly on the promise to bolster the country’s borders, has accused the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, of exploiting the refugee drama as political leverage both in dealings with Athens and the EU. As host to some 4 million displaced Syrians, Turkey has more refugees than anywhere else in the world, with Erdoğan facing mounting domestic pressure over the issue.

      Greek officials, who are also confronting growing outrage from local communities on Aegean islands, fear that the number of arrivals will rise further if, as looks likely, Idlib, Syria’s last opposition holdout falls. The area has come under renewed attack from regime forces in recent days.

      It is hoped the barrier will be in place by the end of April after an invitation by the Greek defence ministry for private contractors to submit offers.

      The project is expected to cost €500,000 (£421,000). Officials said it will be built by the military, which has also played a role in erecting camps across Greece, but with “non-military specifications” to ensure international maritime standards. The fence could extend 13 to 15km, with more parts being added if the initial pilot is deemed successful.

      “There will be a test run probably on land first for technological reasons,” said one official.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/30/greece-plans-to-build-sea-barrier-off-lesbos-to-deter-migrants

    • “Floating wall” to stop refugees puts lives at risk, says Amnesty International

      The plans of the Greek government to build floating fences to prevent refugee and migrants arrivals from Turkey have triggered sharp criticism by Amnesty International. A statement issued on Thursday says that the floating fences will put people’s lives at risk.

      In response to a government proposal to install a 2.7 km long system of floating dams off the coast of Lesvos to deter new arrivals of asylum seekers from Turkey, Amnesty International’s Research Director for Europe Massimo Moratti said:

      “This proposal marks an alarming escalation in the Greek government’s ongoing efforts to make it as difficult as possible for asylum-seekers and refugees to arrive on its shores and will lead to more danger for those desperately seeking safety.

      This proposal marks an alarming escalation in the Greek government’s ongoing efforts to make it as difficult as possible refugees to arrive on its shores.
      Massimo Moratti, Amnesty International

      “The plan raises serious issues about rescuers’ ability to continue providing life-saving assistance to people attempting the dangerous sea crossing to Lesvos. The government must urgently clarify the operational details and necessary safeguards to ensure that this system does not cost further lives.”

      Background

      The floating dam system is described as one of the measures adopted in a broader attempt to secure maritime borders and prevent arrivals.

      In 2019, Greece received almost 60,000 sea arrivals, almost doubling the total number of sea arrivals in 2018. Between January and October, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) recorded 66 deaths on the Eastern Mediterranean route.

      https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2020/01/31/amnesty-international-floating-fences-greece-refugees

    • Greece is building floating fences to stop migration flows in the Aegean

      Greece is planning to build floating fences in the Aegean Sea in order to prevent refugees and migrants to arrive from Turkey, The fences are reportedly to be set off the islands of the Eastern Aegean Sea that receive the overwhelming migration flows. The plan will be executed by the Greek Armed Forces as the tender launched by the Defense Ministry states.

      For this purpose the Defense Ministry has launched a tender for the supply of the floating fences.

      According to Lesvos media stonisi, the tender aims to supply the Defense Ministry with 2,700 meters of protection floating system of no military specifications.

      The floating fences will be used by the Armed Forces for their mission to manage a continuously increasing refugee/migration flows, as it is clearly stated in the tender text.

      It is indicative that the tender call to the companies states that the supply of the floating protection system “will restrict and, where appropriate, suspend the intent to enter the national territory, in order to counter the ever-increasing migration / refugee flows due to the imperative and urgent need to restrain the increased refugee flows.”

      The tender has been reportedly launched on Jan 24, 2020, in order to cover “urgent needs.” The floating fences will carry lights liker small lighthouses. The fences will be 1.10 m high with 60 cm under water.

      they are reportedly to be installed off the islands of Lesvos, Chios and Samos.

      The estimated cost of the floating system incl maintenance is at 500,000 euros.

      Government spokesman and Defense Minister confirmed the reports on Thursday following skeptical reactions. “It is the first phase of a pilot program,” to start initially of Lesvos, said spokesman Petsas. “We want to see if it works,” he added.

      The floating fences plan primarily raises the question on whether it violates the international law as it prevents people fleeing for their live to seek a safe haven.

      Another question is how these floating fences will prevent the sea traffic (ships, fishing boats)

      PS and the third question is, of course, political: Will these fences be installed at 6 or 12 nautical miles off the islands shores? Greece could use the opportunity to extend its territorial waters… etc etc But it only the usual mean Greeks making jokes about a measure without logic.

      https://twitter.com/Kapoiosmpla/status/1222496803154800641?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E12

      Meanwhile, opponents of the measure showed the length of the floating fence in proportion to the island of Lesvos. The comparison is shocking.

      https://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2020/01/29/floating-fences-greece-aegean-migration-armed-forces

    • La barrière marine anti-migrants en Grèce pourrait ressembler à ça

      Au large de Lesbos, 27km de filet vont être installés pour dissuader les réfugiés et les demandeurs d’asile d’atteindre les îles grecques.

      Un mur marin en filet pour dissuader de venir. Cela fait quelques jours que la Grèce a annoncé son intention d’ériger une barrière dans la mer pour empêcher les migrants d’arriver sur les côtes. On découvre à présent à quoi pourrait ressembler ce nouveau dispositif.

      Selon les informations du Guardianet de la BBC et modélisée en images par l’agence Reuters, la barrière anti-migrants voulue par la Grèce s’étendrait sur 27 kilomètres de long au large de Lesbos. Elle serait soutenue par des pylônes qui s’élèveraient à une cinquantaine de mètres au-dessus de l’eau. Équipée d’une signalisation lumineuse, elle pourrait dissuader les réfugiés de se rendre à Lesbos. C’est, du moins, l’intention du ministre grec de l’Intérieur, Nikos Panagiotopoulos.

      De telles barrières s’élevant au-dessus du niveau de la mer pourraient ainsi rendre difficile le passage des petits bateaux et pourraient poser un problème pour les navires à hélices. Le coût du projet s’élèverait à 500.000 euros ; il faudrait quatre ans pour le mener à bien.
      “Une idée stupide et inefficace”

      L’ONG Amnesty International a vivement critiqué le projet avertissant qu’il ne ferait qu’aggraver les dangers auxquels les réfugiés sont déjà confrontés dans leur quête de sécurité. L’ancien ministre grec des migrations, Dimitris Vitsas, a, lui, décrit la barrière comme une “idée stupide” qui devrait être inefficace. “L’idée qu’une clôture de cette longueur va fonctionner est totalement stupide, a-t-il déclaré. Cela n’empêchera personne de faire le voyage.”

      Mais pour le ministre grec de la Défense, Nikos Panagiotopoulos, l’expérience vécue avec les murs terrestres justifie le projet. ”À Evros, a-t-il déclaré sur radio Skai, l’une des plus grosses stations du pays, les barrières naturelles ont eu de [bons] résultats relatifs à contenir les flux.” Il fait ainsi référence à la clôture surmontée de barbelés que la Grèce a construite le long de sa frontière terrestre nord avec la Turquie en 2012 pour dissuader demandeurs d’asile. “Nous pensons qu’un résultat similaire peut être obtenu avec ces barrières flottantes. Nous essayons de trouver des solutions pour réduire les flux”, ajoute-t-il.

      La situation est tendue sur l’île grecque où les habitants se sont mobilisés fin janvier pour s’opposer à l’ouverture de nouveaux camps. Plus récemment, lundi 3 février, une manifestation des migrants à Lesbos contre le durcissement des lois d’asile a viré à l’affrontement avec les forces de l’ordre.


      https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/entry/grece-mur-migrant-srefugies-lesbos-barriere_fr_5e397a4cc5b6ed0033acc5

    • Greece plans to build sea barrier off Lesbos to deter migrants

      Defence ministry says floating barrier will stop migrants crossing from Turkey.

      The Greek government has been criticised after announcing it will build a floating barrier to deter thousands of people from making often perilous sea journeys from Turkey to Aegean islands on Europe’s periphery.

      The centre-right administration unveiled the measure on Thursday, following its pledge to take a tougher stance on undocumented migrants accessing the country.

      The 2.7km-long netted barrier will be erected off Lesbos, the island that shot to prominence at the height of the Syrian civil war when close to a million Europe-bound refugees landed on its beaches. The bulwark will rise from pylons 50 metres above water and will be equipped with flashing lights to demarcate Greece’s sea borders.

      Greece’s defence minister, Nikos Panagiotopoulos, told Skai radio: “In Evros, natural barriers had relative [good] results in containing flows,” referring to the barbed-wire topped fence that Greece built along its northern land border with Turkey in 2012 to deter asylum seekers. “We believe a similar result can be had with these floating barriers. We are trying to find solutions to reduce flows.”

      Amnesty International slammed the plan, warning it would enhance the dangers asylum-seekers and refugees encountered as they attempted to seek safety.

      “This proposal marks an alarming escalation in the Greek government’s ongoing efforts to make it as difficult as possible for asylum-seekers and refugees to arrive on its shores,” said Massimo Moratti, the group’s Research Director for Europe.“The plan raises serious issues about rescuers’ ability to continue providing life-saving assistance to people attempting the dangerous sea crossing to Lesbos. The government must urgently clarify the operational details and necessary safeguards to ensure that this system does not cost further lives.”

      Greece’s former migration minister, Dimitris Vitsas, described the barrier as a “stupid idea” that was bound to be ineffective. “The idea that a fence of this length is going to work is totally stupid,” he said. “It’s not going to stop anybody making the journey.”

      Greece has seen more arrivals of refugees and migrants than any other part of Europe over the past year, as human traffickers along Turkey’s western coast target its outlying Aegean isles with renewed vigour. More than 44,000 people are in camps on the outposts designed to hold no more than 5,400 people. Human rights groups have described conditions in the facilities as deplorable. In Moria, the main reception centre on Lesbos, about 140 sick children are among an estimated 19,000 men, women and children crammed into vastly overcrowded tents and containers.

      Amid mounting tensions with Turkey over energy resources in the Mediterranean, Greece fears a further surge in arrivals in the spring despite numbers dropping radically since the EU struck a landmark accord with Ankara to curb the flows in March 2016.

      The prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, who trounced his predecessor, Alexis Tsipras, in July partly on the promise to bolster the country’s borders, has accused the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, of exploiting the refugee drama as political leverage both in dealings with Athens and the EU. As host to some 4 million displaced Syrians, Turkey has more refugees than anywhere else in the world, with Erdoğan facing mounting domestic pressure over the issue.

      Greek officials, who are also confronting growing outrage from local communities on Aegean islands, fear that the number of arrivals will rise further if, as looks likely, Idlib, Syria’s last opposition holdout falls. The area has come under renewed attack from regime forces in recent days.

      It is hoped the barrier will be in place by the end of April after an invitation by the Greek defence ministry for private contractors to submit offers.

      The project is expected to cost €500,000 (£421,000). Officials said it will be built by the military, which has also played a role in erecting camps across Greece, but with “non-military specifications” to ensure international maritime standards. The fence could extend 13 to 15km, with more parts being added if the initial pilot is deemed successful.

      “There will be a test run probably on land first for technological reasons,” said one official.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/30/greece-plans-to-build-sea-barrier-off-lesbos-to-deter-migrants

    • Schwimmende Barrieren gegen Migranten: Die griechische Regierung will Flüchtlingsboote mit schwimmenden Barrikaden stoppen

      Griechenland denkt über eine umstrittene Methode nach, um die stark wachsende Zahle der Bootsflüchtlinge einzudämmen.

      Die Zahl der Flüchtlinge, die von der türkischen Küste her übers Meer zu den griechischen Ägäis­inseln kommen, steigt derzeit wieder deutlich an. Die Regierung in Athen hat jetzt eine neue Idee vorgestellt, wie sie die Flüchtlingsboote stoppen will: mit schwimmenden Grenzbarrieren mitten auf dem Meer.

      Der griechische Regierungssprecher Stelios Petsas bestätigte gestern die Pläne. Das griechische Verteidigungsministerium hat bereits einen entsprechenden Auftrag zum Bau eines Prototyps ausgeschrieben. Das Pilotprojekt sieht den Bau einer 2,7 Kilometer langen Barriere vor, die 1,10 Meter aus dem Wasser aufragt und 50 bis 60 Zentimeter tief ins Wasser reicht. Der schwimmende Zaun soll mit blinkenden Leuchten versehen sein, damit er in der Dunkelheit sichtbar ist.
      Israel hat Erfahrungen mit Sperranlagen im Meer

      Für den Bau der Sperranlage will das Verteidigungsministerium 500000 Euro bereitstellen. Das Unternehmen, das den Zuschlag bekommt, soll innerhalb von drei Monaten liefern und für vier Jahre die Wartung der Barriere übernehmen. Verteidigungsminister Nikos Panagiotopoulos sagte dem griechischen Fernsehsender Skai, man wolle in einer ersten Phase ausprobieren, «ob das System funktioniert und wo es eingesetzt werden kann».

      Über dem Projekt schweben allerdings viele Fragezeichen. Erfahrungen mit schwimmenden Barrieren hat Israel an den Grenzen zum Gazastreifen und zu Jordanien im Golf von Akaba gemacht. In der Ägäis sind die Bedingungen aber wegen der grossen Wassertiefe, der starken Strömungen und häufigen Stürme viel schwieriger. Schwimmende Barrieren müssten am Meeresboden verankert sein, damit sie nicht davontreiben.

      Fraglich ist auch, ob sich die Schleuser von solchen Sperren abhalten liessen. Sie würden vermutlich auf andere Routen ausweichen. Und selbst wenn Flüchtlingsboote an der Barriere «stranden» sollten, wäre die griechische Küstenwache verpflichtet, die Menschen als Schiffbrüchige zu retten.

      Ohnehin scheint die Regierung daran zu denken, nur besonders stark frequentierte Küstenabschnitte zu sichern. Die gesamte griechisch-türkische Seegrenze von der Insel Samothraki im Norden bis nach Rhodos im Süden mit einem schwimmenden Zaun abzuriegeln, wäre ein utopisches Projekt. Diese Grenze ist über 2000 Kilometer lang. Sie mit einer Barriere dicht zu machen, verstiesse überdies gegen das internationale Seerecht und würde den Schiffsverkehr in der Ägäis behindern. Experten sagen, dass letztlich nur die Türkei die Seegrenze zu Griechenland wirksam sichern kann – indem sie die Flüchtlingsboote gar nicht erst ablegen lässt. Dazu hat sich die Türkei im Flüchtlingspakt mit der EU verpflichtet. Dennoch kamen im vergangenen Jahr 59726 Schutzsuchende übers Meer aus der Türkei, ein Anstieg von fast 84 Prozent gegenüber 2018.

      https://www.luzernerzeitung.ch/international/schwimmende-barrieren-gegen-migranten-ld.1190264

    • EU fordert Erklärungen von Griechenland zu Barriere-Plänen

      Das griechische Verteidigungsministerium will Geflüchtete mit schwimmenden „Schutzsystemen“ vor der Küste zurückhalten. Die EU-Kommission dringt auf mehr Information - sie erfuhr aus den Medien von den Plänen.

      Griechenland will Migranten mit schwimmenden Barrieren in der Ägäis konfrontieren - zu den Plänen des Verteidigungsministeriums sind aber noch viele Fragen offen. Auch die EU-Kommission hat Erklärungsbedarf. „Wir werden die griechische Regierung kontaktieren, um besser zu verstehen, worum es sich handelt“, sagte Behördensprecher Adalbert Jahnz. Die Kommission habe aus den Medien von dem Vorhaben erfahren.

      Jahnz sagte, der Zweck des Vorhabens sei derzeit noch nicht ersichtlich. Klar sei, dass Barrieren dieser Art den Zugang zu einem Asylverfahren verhindern dürften. Der Grundsatz der Nichtzurückweisung und die Grundrechte müssten in jedem Fall gewahrt bleiben. „Ich kann nichts zur Moralität verschiedener Maßnahmen sagen“, fügte Jahnz hinzu. Die Errichtung der Barrieren an sich verstoße nicht gegen EU-Recht.

      Griechenlands Verteidigungsminister Nikos Panagiotopoulos, dessen Ministerium das Projekt ausgeschrieben hat, zeigte sich jedoch nicht sicher, ob der Plan erfolgreich sein kann. Zunächst sei nur ein Versuch geplant, sagte er dem Athener Nachrichtensender Skai. „Wir wollen sehen, ob das funktioniert und wo und ob es eingesetzt werden kann“, sagte Panagiotopoulos.

      Das Verteidigungsministerium hatte die Ausschreibung für das Projekt am Mittwoch auf seiner Homepage veröffentlicht. Die „schwimmenden Schutzsysteme“ sollen knapp drei Kilometer lang sein, etwa 50 Zentimeter über dem Wasser aufragen und mit Blinklichtern ausgestattet sein. Die griechische Presse verglich die geplanten Absperrungen technisch mit den Barrieren gegen Ölteppiche im Meer.
      Was können die Barrieren tatsächlich ausrichten?

      Eigentlich dürften gar keine Migranten illegal auf dem Seeweg von der Türkei nach Griechenland kommen: Die Europäische Union hat mit der Türkei eine Vereinbarung geschlossen, die Ankara verpflichtet, Migranten und ihre Schleuser abzufangen und von Griechenland zudem Migranten ohne Asylanspruch zurückzunehmen.

      Doch nach Angaben des Uno-Flüchtlingshilfswerks UNHCR stieg die Zahl der Migranten, die illegal aus der Türkei nach Griechenland kamen, 2019 von gut 50.500 auf mehr als 74.600. Seit Jahresbeginn 2020 setzen täglich im Durchschnitt gut 90 Menschen aus der Türkei zu den griechischen Ägäis-Inseln über.

      Die Frage ist, ob schwimmende Sperren daran etwas ändern. „Ich kann nicht genau verstehen, wie diese Barrieren die Migranten daran hindern sollen, nach Griechenland zu kommen“, sagte ein Offizier der Küstenwache. Denn wenn die Migranten die Barrieren erreichten, seien sie in griechischen Hoheitsgewässern und müssten gemäß dem Seerecht gerettet und aufgenommen werden.

      Der UNHCR-Sprecher in Athen, Boris Cheshirkov, verweist zudem auf die Pflicht Griechenlands, die Menschenrechte zu achten. Griechenland habe das legitime Recht, seine Grenzen so zu kontrollieren, „wie das Land es für richtig hält“, sagte er. „Dabei müssen aber die Menschenrechte geachtet werden. Zahlreiche Migranten, die aus der Türkei nach Griechenland übersetzen, sind nämlich Flüchtlinge.“

      In Athen wird der Barrierebau auch als innenpolitisches Manöver angesichts der wachsenden Unzufriedenheit über die Entwicklung der Einwanderung gewertet.

      https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/fluechtlinge-eu-fordert-erklaerungen-von-griechenland-zu-barriere-plaenen-a-

    • Un autre „mur flottant“, à #Gaza...

      Wie Israel tauchende und schwimmende Terroristen abwehrt

      Der Gazastreifen wird mit großem Aufwand weiter abgeriegelt. Die neue Seebarriere ergänzt die Mauer und die Luftabwehr gegen Hamas-Attacken.

      Am Sikim-Strand an Israels Mittelmeerküste, rund 70 Kilometer südlich von Tel Aviv, rollen dieser Tage die Bagger durch den feinen, beigefarbenen Sand. Sie arbeiten nicht an einer Strandverschönerung, sondern an einer Schutzvorrichtung, die Israel sicherer machen soll: eine Meeresbarriere – „die einzige dieser Art auf der Welt“, verkündete Verteidigungsminister Avigdor Lieberman stolz auf Twitter.

      Die neue Konstruktion soll tauchenden und schwimmenden Terroristen aus Gaza den Weg blockieren und aus drei Schichten bestehen: eine unter Wasser, eine aus Stein und eine aus Stacheldraht – ähnlich wie Wellenbrecher. Ein zusätzlicher Zaun soll um diese Barriere errichtet werden. „Das ist eine weitere Präventionsmaßnahme gegen die Hamas, die nun eine weitere strategische Möglichkeit verlieren wird, in deren Entwicklung sie viel Geld investiert hat“, schrieb Lieberman. Man werde die Bürger weiterhin mit Stärke und Raffinesse schützen.

      Tatsächlich ist die Meeresbarriere nicht das erste „raffinierte“ Konstrukt der Israelis, um sich vor Terrorangriffen aus dem Gazastreifen zu schützen. Seit 2011 setzt die Armee den selbst entwickelten Abfangschirm „Iron Dome“ ein, der Raketen rechtzeitig erkennt und noch in der Luft abschießt – zumindest dann, wenn der Flug lange dauert, das heißt das Angriffsziel nicht zu nahe am Abschussort liegt. Für einige Dörfer und Kibbuzim direkt am Gazastreifen bleiben die Raketen weiterhin eine große Gefahr.
      Einsatz von Drachen

      Seit vergangenem Jahr baut Israel auch eine bis tief in die Erde reichende Mauer. Umgerechnet mehr als 750 Millionen Euro kostet dieser Hightechbau, der mit Sensoren ausgestattet ist und Bewegungen auch unterhalb der Erde meldet. In den vergangenen Jahren und Monaten hat die Armee zahlreiche Tunnel entdeckt und zerstört. Dass Terrorgruppen nach Abschluss des Baus noch versuchen werden, unterirdisch vorzudringen, scheint unwahrscheinlich: „Mit dem Bau wird die Grenze hermetisch abgeriegelt“, sagt ein Sicherheitsexperte. Rund zehn der insgesamt 64 Kilometer langen Mauer seien bereits komplett fertiggestellt, bis Anfang kommenden Jahres soll der Bau abgeschlossen sein.

      Nun folgt der Seeweg: Während des Gazakrieges 2014 hatten Taucher der Hamas es geschafft, bewaffnet Israels Küste zu erreichen. Sie wurden dort von den israelischen Streitkräften getötet. Es waren seither wohl nicht die einzigen Versuche, ist Kobi Michael, einst stellvertretender Generaldirektor des Ministeriums für Strategische Angelegenheiten, überzeugt. „Es wurde nicht zwingend darüber berichtet, aber es gab Versuche.“

      Israel reagiert mit neuen Erfindungen auf die verschiedenen Angriffstaktiken der Terroristen in Gaza – doch die entwickeln bereits neue. Es bleibt ein Katz-und-Maus-Spiel. Jüngste Taktik ist der Einsatz von Drachen, die mit Molotowcocktails oder Dosen voller brennendem Benzin ausgestattet werden. Dutzende solcher Drachen wurden während der „Marsch der Rückkehr“-Proteste in den vergangenen zwei Monaten nach Israel geschickt.

      „Das ist eine neue und sehr primitive Art des Terrors“, so Kobi Michael. Aber eben auch eine wirkungsvolle, da Landwirtschaft im Süden eine große Rolle spielt und Israel zudem seine Natur schützen will. „Sie haben es geschafft, bereits Hunderte Hektar Weizenfelder und Wälder in Brand zu stecken.“ Israel setzt nun unter anderem spezielle Drohnen ein, um die brennenden Drachen noch in der Luft zu zerstören. Aber Michael ist sicher, auch hier bedarf es zukünftig eines besseren Abwehrsystems. Der Sicherheitsexperte sieht es positiv: „Sie fordern uns heraus und wir reagieren mit der Entwicklung hochtechnologischer Lösungen.“

      https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/seebarriere-noerdlich-des-gazastreifens-wie-israel-tauchende-und-schwimmende-terroristen-abwehrt/22617084.html
      #Israël #Palestine

    • La #barrière_maritime israélienne de Gaza est sur le point d’être achevée

      Un mur sous-marin de rochers et de détecteurs surmonté d’une clôture intelligente de 6 mètres de haut et d’un brise-lames comble un vide dans les défenses d’Israël.

      Plus de quatre ans après qu’une équipe de commandos du Hamas est entrée en Israël depuis la mer pendant la guerre de Gaza en 2014, les ingénieurs israéliens sont sur le point d’achever la construction d’une barrière maritime intelligente destinée à prévenir de futures attaques, a rapporté lundi la Dixième chaîne.

      La construction de la barrière de 200 mètres de long a été effectuée par le ministère de la Défense au large de la plage de Zikim, sur la frontière la plus au nord de Gaza. Le travail a duré sept mois.

      La barrière est destinée à combler un vide dans les défenses d’Israël le long de la frontière avec Gaza.

      Sur terre, Israël a une clôture en surface et construit un système complexe de barrières et de détecteurs souterrains pour empêcher le Hamas – l’organisation terroriste islamiste qui dirige Gaza et cherche à détruire Israël – de percer des tunnels en territoire israélien. En mer, la marine israélienne maintient une présence permanente capable de détecter les tentatives d’infiltration dans les eaux israéliennes.

      Mais il y avait une brèche juste au large de la plage de Zikim, dans la zone étroite des eaux peu profondes où ni les forces terrestres ni les navires de mer ne pouvaient opérer facilement.

      Les commandos du Hamas ont profité de cette faille en 2014 pour contourner facilement une clôture vétuste et délabrée et passer en Israël par les eaux peu profondes.

      Les forces du Hamas n’ont été arrêtées que lorsque les équipes de surveillance de Tsahal ont remarqué leurs mouvements lorsqu’elles sont arrivées sur la plage en Israël.

      La barrière est composée de plusieurs parties. Un mur sous-marin de blocs rocheux s’étend à environ 200 mètres dans la mer. A l’intérieur du mur de blocs rocheux se trouve un mur en béton revêtu de détecteurs sismiques et d’autres outils technologiques dont la fonction exacte est secrète.

      Au-dessus de l’eau, le long du côté ouest du mur nord-sud, une clôture intelligente hérissée de détecteurs s’élève à une hauteur de six mètres.

      Du côté est, un brise-lames avec une route au milieu s’étend sur toute la longueur du mur sous-marin.

      La construction a été rapide, bien qu’elle ait été entravée ponctuellement par les attaques du Hamas.

      Lors d’une de ces attaques, un combattant du Hamas a lancé des grenades sur les forces israéliennes qui gardaient les équipes de travail, avant d’être tué par les tirs israéliens en retour.

      https://fr.timesofisrael.com/la-barriere-maritime-israelienne-de-gaza-est-sur-le-point-detre-ac

    • Grèce : un mur flottant pour contrer l’arrivée de migrants

      Pour restreindre l’arrivée de migrants depuis la Turquie, le gouvernement grec vient de lancer un appel d’offres pour la construction, en pleine mer Égée, d’un « système de protection flottant ». Une annonce qui provoque de vives réactions.

      Athènes (Grèce), correspondance.– Depuis les côtes turques, les rivages de Lesbos surgissent après une douzaine de kilomètres de mer Égée. En 2019, ce bras de mer est redevenu la première porte d’entrée des demandeurs d’asile dans l’Union européenne, pour la plupart des Afghans et des Syriens. Mais un nouvel obstacle pourrait bientôt compliquer le passage, sinon couper la voie. À Athènes, le gouvernement conservateur estime détenir une solution pour réduire les arrivées : ériger une barrière flottante anti-migrants.

      Fin janvier, le ministère de la défense a ainsi publié un appel d’offres « pour la fourniture d’un système de protection flottant […] », visant « à gérer […] en cas d’urgence […] le flux de réfugiés et de migrants qui augmente sans cesse ». D’après ce document de 122 pages, le dispositif « de barrage ou filet […] de couleur jaune ou orange », composé de plusieurs sections de 25 à 50 mètres reliées entre elles, s’étendra sur 2,7 km.

      Il s’élèvera « d’au moins » 50 centimètres au-dessus des flots. Et de nuit, la clôture brillera grâce à « des bandes réfléchissantes […] et des lumières jaunes clignotantes ». Son coût estimé : 500 000 euros – dont 96 774 de TVA – incluant « quatre ans d’entretien et la formation du personnel » pour son installation en mer.

      Sollicitées, les autorités n’ont pas donné d’autres détails à Mediapart. Mais l’agence Reuters et les médias grecs précisent que le mur sera testé au nord de Lesbos, île qui a concentré 58 % des entrées de migrants dans le pays en 2019, d’après le Haut-Commissariat aux réfugiés (HCR).

      Alors que la Grèce compte désormais 87 000 demandeurs d’asile, environ 42 000 (majoritairement des familles) sont bloqués à Lesbos, Leros, Chios, Kos et Samos, le temps du traitement de leur requête. Avec 6 000 places d’hébergement à peine sur ces cinq îles, la situation est devenue explosive (lire notre reportage à Samos).

      « Cela ne peut pas continuer ainsi, a justifié le ministre de la défense nationale, Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos, le 30 janvier dernier, sur la radio privée Skaï. Il reste à savoir si [ce barrage] fonctionnera. »

      Joint par téléphone, un habitant de Mytilène (chef-lieu de Lesbos), souhaitant garder son anonymat, déclare ne voir dans ce mur qu’un « effet d’annonce ». « Impossible qu’il tienne en mer, les vents sont trop violents l’hiver. Et ce sera dangereux pour les pêcheurs du coin. Ce projet n’est pas sérieux, les autorités turques ne réagissent même pas, elles rigolent ! »

      Pour Amnesty International, il s’agit d’une « escalade inquiétante » ; pour Human Rights Watch, d’un projet « insensé qui peut mettre la vie [des migrants] en danger ».

      L’annonce de ce mur test a non seulement fait bondir les ONG, mais aussi provoqué un malaise au sein de certaines institutions. « Si une petite embarcation percute la barrière et se renverse, comment les secours pourront-ils accéder au lieu du naufrage ? », interroge également la chercheuse Vicky Skoumbi, directrice de programme au Collège international de philosophie de Paris. Selon elle, cette barrière est « contraire au droit international », notamment l’article 33 de la Convention de 1951 sur le statut des réfugiés et le droit d’asile, qui interdit les refoulements. « L’entrave à la liberté de circulation que constitue la barrière flottante équivaut à un refoulement implicite (ou en acte) du candidat à l’asile », poursuit Vicky Skoumbi.

      L’opposition de gauche Syriza, qui moque sa taille (trois kilomètres sur des centaines de kilomètres de frontière maritime), a aussi qualifié ce projet de « hideux » et de « violation des réglementations européennes ».

      Le porte-parole de la Commission européenne, Adalbert Jahnz, pris de court le 30 janvier lors d’un point presse, a par ailleurs déclaré : « L’installation de barrières n’est pas contraire en tant que telle au droit de l’UE […] cependant […] du point de vue du droit de l’[UE], des barrières de ce genre ou obstacles physiques ne peuvent pas rendre impossible l’accès à la procédure d’asile. »

      « Nous suivons le dossier et sommes en contact étroit avec le gouvernement grec », nous résume aujourd’hui Adalbert Jahnz. Boris Cheshirkov l’un des porte-parole du HCR, rappelle surtout à Mediapart que « 85 % des personnes qui arrivent aujourd’hui en Grèce sont des réfugiés et ont un profil éligible à l’asile ».

      Pour justifier son mur flottant, le gouvernement de droite affirme s’inspirer d’un projet terrestre ayant déjà vu le jour en 2012 : une barrière anti-migrants de 12,5 kilomètres de barbelés érigée entre la bourgade grecque de Nea Vyssa (nord-est du pays) et la ville turque d’Édirne, dans la région de l’Évros.

      L’UE avait à l’époque refusé le financement de cette clôture de près de 3 millions d’euros, finalement payée par l’État grec. Huit ans plus tard, le gouvernement salue son « efficacité » : « Les flux [de migrants] ont été réduits à [cette] frontière terrestre. Nous pensons que le système flottant pourrait avoir un impact similaire », a déclaré le ministre de la défense sur Skaï.

      Or pour la géographe Cristina Del Biaggio, maîtresse de conférences à l’université de Grenoble Alpes, ce mur de l’Évros n’a diminué les arrivées que « localement et temporairement » : « Il a modifié les parcours migratoires en les déplaçant vers le nord-est, à la frontière avec la Bulgarie. »

      En réponse, le voisin bulgare a érigé dans la foulée, en 2014, sa propre clôture anti-migrants à la frontière turque. Les arrivées se sont alors reportées sur les îles grecques du Dodécanèse, puis de nouveau dans la région de l’Évros. « En jouant à ce jeu cynique du chat et de la souris, le durcissement des frontières n’a que dévié (et non pas stoppé) les flux dans la région », conclut Cristina Del Biaggio.

      Selon elle, la construction d’une barrière flottante à des fins de contrôle frontalier serait une première. Le fait que ce « projet pilote » émane du ministère de la défense « est symbolique », ajoute Filippa Chatzistavrou, chercheuse en sciences politiques à l’université d’Athènes. « Depuis 2015, la Défense s’implique beaucoup dans les questions migratoires et c’est une approche qui en dit long : on perçoit les migrants comme une menace. »

      Théoriquement, « c’est le ministère de l’immigration qui devrait être en charge de ces projets, a reconnu le ministre de la défense. Mais il vient tout juste d’être recréé… ». Le gouvernement de droite conservatrice l’avait, de fait, supprimé à son arrivée en juillet dernier (avant de faire volte-face), en amorce d’autres réformes dures en matière d’immigration. En novembre, en particulier, une loi sur la procédure d’asile a été adoptée au Parlement, qui prolonge notamment la durée possible de rétention des demandeurs et réduit leurs possibilités de faire appel. Une politique qui n’a pas empêché la hausse des arrivées en Grèce.

      Porte-parole du HCR à Lesbos, Astrid Castelin observe l’île sombrer désormais « dans la haine des réfugiés et l’incertitude ». Reflet de la catastrophe en cours, le camp de Moria, en particulier, n’en finit pas de s’étaler dans les collines d’oliviers. « On y compte plus de 18 000 personnes, dont beaucoup d’enfants de moins de 12 ans, pour 3 000 places, s’inquiète ainsi Astrid Castelin. La municipalité ne peut plus ramasser l’ensemble des déchets, les files d’attente pour les douches ou les toilettes sont interminables. » Le 3 février, la police a fait usage de gaz lacrymogènes à l’encontre de 2 000 migrants qui manifestaient pour leurs droits.

      L’habitant de Lesbos déjà cité, lui, note qu’on parle davantage sur l’île de l’apparition de « milices d’extrême droite qui rôdent près de Moria, qui demandent leurs cartes d’identité aux passants » que du projet de barrage flottant. Le 7 février, en tout cas, la police grecque a annoncé avoir interpellé sept personnes soupçonnées de projeter une attaque de migrants.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/110220/grece-un-mur-flottant-pour-contrer-l-arrivee-de-migrants

    • Floating Anti-Refugee Fence for Greek Island Lesbos Nears Finish

      A 3-kilometer (1.864-mile) floating barrier more than 1 meter (3.28 feet) high designed to keep refugees and migrants from reaching the eastern Aegean island of Lesbos already holding nearly 20,000 is reportedly near completion.

      The project, widely mocked and assailed as unlikely to work and inhumane, was commissioned by the New Democracy government earlier in 2020 as one means to keep the refugees away although patrols by the Greek Coast Guard and European Union border agency Frontex haven’t worked to do that.

      The Greek Ministry of Defence said the project is in its final phase, reported The Brussels Times, the floating fence to be put off the northeast part of Lesbos with no explanation how it would work if boats steer around it.

      The Greek government launched bids on January 29 with the cost of the design, installation and maintenance for four years estimated at 500,000 euros ($560,250) but it wasn’t said who the builder was.

      The project went ahead during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite objections from critics and human rights groups. “This plan raises worrying questions about the possibility of rescuers continuing to provide assistance to people attempting the dangerous crossing of the sea,” Amnesty International said.

      During COVID-19, the numbers of arrival on islands near the coast of Turkey, which has allowed human traffickers to keep sending them during an essentially-suspended 2016 swap deal with the European Union dwindled.

      Turkey is holding about 5.5 million refugees and migrants who fled war and strife in their homelands, especially Afghanistan and Syria’s civil war, but also economic conditions in sub-Saharan Africa and other countries.

      They went to Turkey in hopes of reaching prosperous countries in the EU, which closed its borders to them and reneged on promises to help spread some of the overload, leaving them to go to Greece to seek asylum.

      Since April, only 350 arrived on Lesbos, the paper said, with the notorious Moria detention camp that the BBC called “the worst in the world,” holding nearly 18,000 people in what rights groups said were inhumane conditions.

      Greece has about 100,000 refugees and migrants, including more than 33,000 asylum seekers in five camps on the Aegean islands, with a capacity of only 5,400 people, and some 70,000 more in other facilities on the mainland.

      When the idea was announced, it drew immediate fire and criticism, with the European Union cool to the idea and Germany not even talking about it.

      Amnesty International and other human rights groups piled on against the scheme that was proposed after the government said it would replace camps on islands with detention centers to vet those ineligible for asylum.

      Island officials and residents were upset then, with compassion fatigue setting him even more after trying to deal with a crisis heading into its fifth year. The government said it would move 20,000 to the mainland.

      At the time, Migration Minister Notis Mitarakis said it was a “positive measure that will help monitor areas close to the Turkish coast,” and the barrier “sends out the message that we are not a free-for-all and that we’re taking all necessary measures to protect the borders.”

      Rights groups said it will increase risks faced by refugees and migrants trying to reach Greek islands in rickety craft and rubber dinghies, many of which have overturned or capsized since 2016, drowning scores of people.

      The barrier will and have lights to make it visible at night, said officials. “The invitation for floating barriers is in the right direction… We will see what the result, what its effect as a deterrent will be in practice,” Defence Minister Nikos Panagiotopoulos told SKAI Radio.

      “It will be a natural barrier. If it works like the one in Evros, I believe it can be effective,” he said, referring to a cement and barbed-wire fence that Greece set up in 2012 along its northern border with Turkey to keep out migrants and refugees, which hasn’t worked.

      The major opposition SYRIZA condemned the floating barrier plan as “a disgrace and an insult to humanity,” with other reports it would be only 19 inches above water or if it would be visible in rough seas that have sunk boats.

      Adding that the idea was “disgusting,” a SYRIZA statement said the barrier “offends humanity … and violates European and international rules,” said the party, calling the proposal absurd, unenforceable and dangerous. “Even a child knows that in the sea you cannot have a wall.”

      https://www.thenationalherald.com/greece_politics/arthro/floating_anti_refugee_fence_for_greek_island_lesbos_nears_finish-